Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I believe that studying Daito-ryu would give me a deeper understanding of the fundamental principles behind Aikido. Just like sciences build upon one another; mathematics is the most basic, then physics, then chemistry, then biology, the chain continues. Since Aikido draws from the fundamental principles of Daito-ryu, I believe it would be beneficial to learn more about the art Aikido was derived from. Have a good day!

I voted no on having to study DTR. My thoughts on this, is while it may give you a better understanding of our art and the evolution of a species, it will not really improve it. Like studying Latin, yes it will make a more knowledgeable on our language and perhaps a shoe in as a life line on Who wants to be a millionaire. But will it make you an orator like William F. Buckley? Probably not. DTR is DTR Aikido is Aikido. DTR is simply not Aikido with Atemi. But a different system altogether. We can take this argument to the extremes too, i.e. should we as Aikidoka read the Kojiki to understand O'sensei's Doka??

I think they're based on exactly the same ideas, and in combat they should be fairly identical, but I believe that the reason we have Aikido is that Daito-Ryu was NOT taught in a manner that addressed properly the principles on which both were based. I think the training must be significantly different in approach (unless you're taking an incorrect approach in your aikido) and that training in this system will not help you understand your aikido to anywhere near the same degree as a good aikido class. Like reading a book, you may discover something useful. Of course, you can't learn Aikido from a book..
andrew

I think they're based on exactly the same ideas, and in combat they should be fairly identical,
andrew

this is a little off. If you compare DTR and aikido today, Aikido during the Iwama period and even the Aikibudo period. You will see this. You are skipping the influence of Onisaburo Deguchi and Omoto kyo on O sensei, the 1 spirit, 8 powers, 3 elements, and the 4 origins. These are the spiritual foundations of Aikido and appear nowhere in DTR dogma. Secondly Aikido is not a combat art, but an art to bring peace and harmony to the world. Thirdly technique wise yes Aikido owes a huge debt technically to DTR. But the techniques are now clearly different. Nidai Doshu deleted many of the jutsu like pins and throws in his efforts to standardize and spread the art. Thirdly contrary to popular belief Osensei only trained in DTR for perhaps a total of 70 days. Spread out over the course of his life. DTR and Aikido are no more the same than Tae Kwon Do is to Karate. Yes both retain elements of Aiki training. And some movements are similiar, but if one looks into the matters a little deeper this is where the difference may be noticed. Trees can look the same from the road, but in the woods they are all different.

Well the thread was talking about technique so the real question is how much did Omoto-kyo influence the evolution of Aikido technique.

The pre-war Aikido styles are in many respects, in my limited experience, much more similar to Daito-ryu than to Aikikai. Ueshiba K. had no influence on Yoshinkan, Yoseikan or Shodokan and much of what you say below was deleted, was retained.

Within Shodokan - the spiritual influence of Omoto-kyo is pretty well zero even though the founder of the style studied at Ayabe and read all he could on the style to better understand Ueshiba M.'s Aikido. Shinto-istic and Buddhist influence permeate much of Budo but the particular brand of neo-Shintoism that Ueshiba M. practiced, the extras, were kept separate. I am unsure how much of the "1 spirit, 8 powers, 3 elements, and the 4 origins" was unique to Omoto-kyo but mystisism is not a big thing in the pre-war Aikido styles.

The 70 days was as you said spread out over a long time - these were long private lessons and training continued with Takeda absent. I understood Ueshiba also assisted Takeda when he taught which would increase his exposure more.

Some of the biggest changes in my mind had more to do with the popularization of Aikido rather than Omoto-kyo influence but like you said at the end of your post - I too could be wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan Hover

this is a little off. If you compare DTR and aikido today, Aikido during the Iwama period and even the Aikibudo period. You will see this. You are skipping the influence of Onisaburo Deguchi and Omoto kyo on O sensei, the 1 spirit, 8 powers, 3 elements, and the 4 origins. These are the spiritual foundations of Aikido and appear nowhere in DTR dogma. Secondly Aikido is not a combat art, but an art to bring peace and harmony to the world. Thirdly technique wise yes Aikido owes a huge debt technically to DTR. But the techniques are now clearly different. Nidai Doshu deleted many of the jutsu like pins and throws in his efforts to standardize and spread the art. Thirdly contrary to popular belief Osensei only trained in DTR for perhaps a total of 70 days. Spread out over the course of his life. DTR and Aikido are no more the same than Tae Kwon Do is to Karate. Yes both retain elements of Aiki training. And some movements are similiar, but if one looks into the matters a little deeper this is where the difference may be noticed. Trees can look the same from the road, but in the woods they are all different.

Andrew, both Aikido and Daito-ryu are perfectly good(for me ). remenber o'sensei been there and wanted to learn and even begging Sokaku Takeda to teach him. so, do not fear to enter those world it's a chalege of life. good luck to your training.

I have trained on quality Daito Ryu mats several times and the art is really far removed from Aikikai Aikido these days. It is interesting to train in Daito Ryu, and can help technically understanding, but the arts are so different it's almost strange. I have never understood the relationship people "play on" between Yoshinkan and Daito Ryu, they are nothing like each other (thinking of the Yoshinkan mats I have been on and the Shioda books). From what I have been told, O'sensei was very much into a section of the syllabus that contained techniques using Aiki (Aiki no justu) and that I believe was what he mainly worked on to create Aikido. It is interesting to note that those techniques are considered so advanced that you really have to be of about 5th Dan level (Tori and Uke) to practise them. This is something I think we miss in modern practise, being able to walk before we run.

2. From my limited exposure to the techniques of the Mainline of Daito ryu under Kondo Sensei, there is a strong relationship between the yoshinkan and that branch in the kata themselves (contained in ikkajo and nikkajo at least), the nature of kata in practice, and the martial spirit.

There are other branches of Daito ryu (most of which I am not as familiar with) that do not strike me as having as strong a connection with the yoshinkan. Your experience, of course, might vary depending on a few different factors:

1) not being very familiar with the same branch of Daito ryu

2) not being very familiar with 'mainline' yoshinkan

3) simply approaching the whole issue from a different perspective

So that you (or anyone else) can understand my perspective a little better, I'll add that I am a yudansha in the yoshinkan (training consistantly about 8 years) and I have trained in several open seminars with Kondo Sensei (and hope to continue that training).

Quote:

From what I have been told, O'sensei was very much into a section of the syllabus that contained techniques using Aiki (Aiki no justu) and that I believe was what he mainly worked on to create Aikido.

That is an interesting observation...from what I have seen, the actual techniques taught in aikido are more from what some would regard as the 'jujutsu' level techniqes in the ikkajo, nikkajo, sankajo and yonkajo catalogues of techniques. Pretty much all of the standard ikkyo, nikyo, sankyo, yonkyo variations are contained in some basic fashion in those catalogues. Not being very familiar with the higher levels of Daito ryu from a practical viewpoint, I can't really speak to the Aiki no Jutsu techniques. And I have to wonder of the people making the claim that aikido is aiki no jutsu...what is their basis for comparison? What is their specific exposure to the Aiki no Jutsu of Daito ryu?

I do know that when Kondo Sensei teaches from Ikkajo, he stresses where and when specifically 'aiki' could be applied, trnsforming the techinques from jujutsu to aikijujutsu.

In reading this thread I couldn't help but wonder of the aikidoka speaking of what they could get from Daito ryu training...how much training in any official branch they had actually had?

Ron

Last edited by Ron Tisdale : 05-10-2004 at 11:07 AM.

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)

No problem...I just like to seek clarity around these kinds of issues. There is relatively little information out there about Daito ryu, especially when contrasted with what is available about aikido. For those interested in the issues, the books by Kondo Sensei are excellent (available from Aikido Journal). For the particular issue of the yoshinkan and its relationship to Daito ryu I'd recommend Stanley Pranin's book on the pre-war students of Ueshiba Sensei, and his Daito ryu Masters. As well as any of the books by Gozo Shioda. Many of the kata similarities can be seen there, as well as in the Training Manual by Inoue Sensei. Not to mention the DVD's that contain much of the yoshinkan syllibus.

Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)

In reading this thread I couldn't help but wonder of the aikidoka speaking of what they could get from Daito ryu training...how much training in any official branch they had actually had?

Ron

The back and forth of opinions on this is always amusing. You hear about Aikido folks leaving to do Daito Ryu because it is better or more effctive somehow but it is hardly ever someone who had really hit the top level in sophistication which Aikido offers.

I can't say that I know of anyone who left Daito Ryu to do Aikido, other than a whole host of Aikido teachers in the early days in Japan. But you certainly here a huge compendium of opinions about Daito Ryu from within the ranks of the Aikidoka which is most often based on little or no actual experience of the art.

It is little minded and just plain not rational to maintain that acquiring another viewpoint, learning new ways of approaching our art won't improve your Aikido. How could more knowledge fail to offer some inspiration for improvement? It is the height of arrogance to assume that, just because we have a different spiritual underpinning to our art, that we then have nothing to learn from the art out of which all of the early great Aikido teachers, including the Founder himself, sprang. This art contains the foundation of evrything we do. It may not be necessary to do Daito Ryu in order to do good Aikido, but the idea that it would be detrimental in some way or that knowing something about how they do their technqiues wouldn't be an asset is not maintenable.

I have trained in both Aikido and Daito Ryu for many years. Our shihan during this time, Jose Garrido, showed us DTR in a different way showing how the Aiki techniques were adopted from DTR. It made the learning much easier to see how a shoulder throw in Aikido by entering and attacking became a DTR technique and honestly a very power throw, not that the Aiki version is light in any way. The comparison we had was Aikido was bend and break if needed, DTR was bend, break and kill, with many of the techniques ending in litterally killing the attacker several times over, just to be sure that if the first few were done wrong one of them would.

I have just one test for my Sho Dan in DTR but currently I am working on my Aikido and teaching, DTR did help to improve my technique a great deal and showed the importance of entering.